Issue #21615 has been updated by brightraven (Billy G. Jaime Beltran). matheusrich (Matheus Richard) wrote in #note-6:
@Dan0042 I considered that. I thought it would be too much for one PR. I'll wait for more feedback, and if people are positive about this, I'll propose `Set#values` too.
One principle I have enjoyed heavily from other programming languages that use this type of duck typing is the idea of a higher abstraction called a sequence[1] over which anything can be iterated, be it a set, a hash or an array. It would be pleasant to have this for all collections equally. 1. https://clojure.org/reference/sequences ---------------------------------------- Feature #21615: Introduce `Array#values` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21615#change-114849 * Author: matheusrich (Matheus Richard) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ## Motivation In Ruby code, it's common to accept arrays and hashes and treat them uniformly as collections of values. `Hash` exposes `#values`, but `Array` does not, which pushes developers toward `is_a?`/`respond_to?` branching. Following the **Principle of Least Surprise**, users may reasonably expect `Array#values` to exist because: * Both `Array` **and** `Hash` already implement `#values_at`. * `Hash` implements `#values` but `Array` does not. ### Example Today: ```ruby def normalize_records(input) items = input.respond_to?(:values) ? input.values : input items.each do |item| do_stuff_with_item(item) end end ``` With `Array#values`: ```ruby def normalize_records(input) input.values.each do |item| do_stuff_with_item(item) end end ``` ## Proposal Add `Array#values`, returning a copy of the elements of `self`. This yields a uniform interface for `Array` and `Hash` values without type checks. ### Alternatives considered * `Enumerable#values`: defaulting to `to_a`, but I found it too broad of a change. * `Array#each_value`: redundant as `Array#each` already covers iteration. Patch: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/14641 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/